The price we pay for freedom of the press is that sometimes we are subjected
to ignorant remarks like those from a major city columnist, whose defensive,
kneejerk reaction, attempts to divert any blame from those paparazzi in
pursuit of Princess Diana, was lavished front page treatment in that paper.
He calls any blame placed on the (paparazzi) photographers involved just
"convenient fiction". Maybe his own conscience is bothering him and many
other journalists collective consciences enough, so that they rush to defend
even criminal actions of so called "fellow" journalists. Even a famous
network news anchorman was quick to go on record defending the paparazzi
involved. This despite witnessed behavior of paparazzi involved as being
absolutely reprehensible!!
A portion of the public is perhaps contemptible for buying those lurid
shameful stories which reward journalistic thugs like these paparazzi, who in
my mind are not news professionals but more like stalkers, peeping toms,
muggers and pornographers. Just because there is a market for such tabloid
trash does not make it right!
While I grant there were many people at blame for this tragedy, including the
driver for being intoxicated and again driver for putting his passenger's
lives at risk, knowing he was intoxicated and then going ahead and driving
recklessly. Also the bodyguard, Dodi Al Fayed and even Diana for not
noticing and objecting to their driver being drunk or at least to his driving
recklessly. I'm sure one could go on and on about how some others also had
at least a small hand in this tragedy too. But to state that the paparazzi
involved were blameless is an insult to anyone's intelligence, morality and
ethics. Truth is these paparazzi contributed to their deaths. Evading them,
or trying to avoid from hitting them zigzagging in front of the car may have
caused a crash even if the driver, any driver for that matter, was completely
sober. Yes, it is probably not worth risking your life much less others, for
anyone to drive that way, even with a professionally trained driver. But the
lengths to which those stalking, harassing paparazzi can hound someone, might
evoke an impulsive response in turn, either trying to flee or shield oneself
from them or perhaps confronting and fighting them off in return. No-one
should be subjected to that much intrusion into their private lives,
especially to be stalked, or spied upon, ala peeping Tom. Yes, people in the
public eye, attending public functions, should expect press coverage, since
it might be construed as news.
But what one does in private is not news at all but an invasion of privacy.
EVERYONE HAS A BASIC RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND AGAINST ANY INVASION TO THEIR
PRIVACY!
You don't peer into the windows of people's homes, hover over their yards or
boats, chase after them in their cars or on foot, especially not while they
are not an active participant in an official public function. This kind of
intrusion all of us would object to, file complaints with the police and/or
file suits as necessary, all with good reason. Just because there is some
segment of the public that is interested in and will buy stories and pictures
of celebrities having any kind of sensationalism, doesn't make it right to
trample over their rights! Our caretaker's of basic human rights have an
obligation to ensure everyone's rights are upheld, by law and law
enforcement, regardless of existence of mob actions, "gapers", prurient
public interest, or the smokescreen of journalistic privilege or freedom of
information. There are limits to public's right to know, limits which should
never be breached. Just because there is a market for child ponography, does
not make it right either! The actions of the paparazzi involved in chasing
after Diana were unquestionably vile, despicable, a travesty and criminal.
Not only did they, emphatically, contribute to the crash, whether directly
or indirectly, some were plain negligent by not trying to help save the
victims, while others were downright criminal by withholding and obstructing
others from intervening in rescue attempts. Money was much more important to
them than someone's life. If they did not have a legal market for their
morbid sleazy photographs, perhaps they would not have been there with blood
on their hands and Diana might still be alive.
How dare anyone defend the paparazzi! To me, they are almost as bad or worse
than stalkers, rapists, muggers, or child pornographers and in this case they
clearly have blood on their hands and fault on their conscience!
Peter Ehrmanntraut
Naperville, IL
since 9/6/97
